Off-Road Mountain Biking: A profile of participants, setting and preferences,
by Gordan Cessford, 1995
[Note: I've converted the footnotes into one endnote file to simplify the web version. Email Paul]
- On this basis the responses in each
group were 59 for beginners, 121 for riders with moderate experience,
222 for riders with much experience, and 102 for very experienced/expert
riders (see Table 3.2).
- This comparative analysis is presented in Appendix 5.
- The number of sites used by riderts is presented in Appendix 3,
along with other information about Wellinton riding sites.
- The sample could be split into separate `racer' and `non-racer'
groups, and comparison of these enabled the type and degree of
any possible bias resulting from race-orientation to be identified.
Due to the extensive nature of these additional analyses, they
are presented in Appendix 2 rather than in the main results.
- Differences in responses between male and female riders are presented
in Appendix 4.
- This distinction between `active' and `passive' orientations in
activities is used later to describe some of the conflicts which
may arise between mountain biking and walking in the same settings.
- Shultis (1991) found outdoor recreation club membership of only
13% for a general public sample, 20% for a national park visitor
sample, and 35% for a backcountry users sample.
- The percentage figures represent the proportion of the sample
who included the feature amongst their top three. When these responses
were looked at in order of preference (see Appendix 6), no particular
features were dominant as first choices.
- These general patterns of findings were repeated when riders were
asked to specify their five most important of these features (see
Appendix 6, Table A.6.6).
- Appendix 8 summarises the top ten conditions specified by the
riders, and includes the respective results for each experience
level group in their order of priority.
- Where required, some reference is made to additional material
included in the Appendices.
- This has been a common finding in recreation research, as summarised
in reviews such as (Manning 1986)
- Riders did most riding on tracks near their homes (see Appendix
3). In the same way, the more `passive' types of recreationists
(e.g., casual walkers) are also likely to use such tracks. In
such shared-track contexts, the visible and associated perceived
differences in rider characteristics can exacerbate any pre-existing
perceptions of conflict.
- Research has indicated about 30% of New Zealanders had participated
recently in cycling (all types), but that this decreased sharply
with age (from over 50% of those aged 15-18) (Hillary Commission
- The ROS defines of a spectrum of recreation opportunity classes
based upon natural and managed differences in the environmental,
social and managerial features of settings. The basis of this
zoning and management system is to provide a range of recreation
opportunities to cater for the diversity of recreation needs.
The ROS is described fully in Department of Conservation Guidelines
(Department of Conservation, 1993), and also in the recreation
review by Manning (1986).
- The more experienced riders remaining, with their greater commitment
to the activity and knowledge of its impacts and requirements,
may be more amenable to adopting `low-impact' and `safe' riding
practices to minimise impact and retain access. The validity of
such an assumption would be a useful research area.
- Speed and excitment experiences are also possible on level tracks,
particularly where smooth surfaces allow faster riding. Also note
that for more experienced riders, such experiences can be achieved
on rougher tracks, even if actual speeds are quite low.
- Whether other users of tracks would be prepared to make similar
concessions due to possible physical impacts or other problems
has not been researched to date.
- Those unfamiliar with this planning system should consult Department
of Conservation (1993) as a first reference.